US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The hilariously ironic thing is how absolutely certain you are without any evidence... just like creationists
Click to expand...

Patience is quite virtuous.
Are you familiar with the term; The last laugh?
IPCC report due Monday.
Court cases pending...
Smugness can be painful!

 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
LOL, Buck and his entourage have been bamboozled big time.

And as I have previously stated, these faithful are in for a very rude awakening.

Hint: Newly published NIPCC report.
It will not be pretty.
They were warned.
Click to expand...
I have been involved in these debates for years now. What the right (and many times the left) seem to ignore is the whole of the issue. (and why is it always the right that denies global warming anyway, why do they, for some reason seem to think that they see things clearly when it is fairly evident that the right has no real use for science in the first place?).

What is the whole of it?

Why was something that was in the providence of scientific debate politicized and then popularized using platitudes and "common sense"? Who backed this concerted effort to include the lay in what was properly a debate among experts? Why would governments, with limited resources propagandize the public at large about this? Why does the right, while on the one hand suspecting some global conspiracy of fear perpetrated upon all the people, refuse to entertain the possibilty that they themselves are being propagandized by, a conspiratorial force that not only has direct vested interest in their denial but also has the nearly unlimited resource to do so?

Why do the deniers depend not upon their own original samples, their own original surveys and studies, but simply attempt to find fault with those parties that DO their own research?

Why do those same deiers concentrate their efforts on only a few questionable issues rather than focusing upon the whole. They tend to isolate their arguments to only a few of the more questionable findings rather than seeing ALL of the evidence, the models, the projections and the news as global trends?

Of course the reasons are fairly clear. Why do they all repeat the same talking points and the same objections? because they are given these items, either directly or by chain-mail or by scoffing discussions with one another. It is because conservatives by nature are unable to grasp ambivilent or fuzzy and inconcrete facts. Sure, there are contrarians, there are folks who are not actually interested in truth, but for the most part, the rest suffer from their own ideology. Man made Global warming cannot be happening because if it is, their aborhance to cultural, societal or even personal change will upset them. They by nature tend to see things in the reverse, they need to construct their reality in ways that conform with their preformed understanding rather than adjust their understanding to conform to realtiy.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
I have been involved in these debates for years now. What the right (and many times the left) seem to ignore is the whole of the issue. (and why is it always the right that denies global warming anyway, why do they, for some reason seem to think that they see things clearly when it is fairly evident that the right has no real use for science in the first place?).

What is the whole of it?

Why was something that was in the providence of scientific debate politicized and then popularized using platitudes and "common sense"? Who backed this concerted effort to include the lay in what was properly a debate among experts? Why would governments, with limited resources propagandize the public at large about this? Why does the right, while on the one hand suspecting some global conspiracy of fear perpetrated upon all the people, refuse to entertain the possibilty that they themselves are being propagandized by, a conspiratorial force that not only has direct vested interest in their denial but also has the nearly unlimited resource to do so?

Why do the deniers depend not upon their own original samples, their own original surveys and studies, but simply attempt to find fault with those parties that DO their own research?

Why do those same deiers concentrate their efforts on only a few questionable issues rather than focusing upon the whole. They tend to isolate their arguments to only a few of the more questionable findings rather than seeing ALL of the evidence, the models, the projections and the news as global trends?

Of course the reasons are fairly clear. Why do they all repeat the same talking points and the same objections? because they are given these items, either directly or by chain-mail or by scoffing discussions with one another. It is because conservatives by nature are unable to grasp ambivilent or fuzzy and inconcrete facts. Sure, there are contrarians, there are folks who are not actually interested in truth, but for the most part, the rest suffer from their own ideology. Man made Global warming cannot be happening because if it is, their aborhance to cultural, societal or even personal change will upset them. They by nature tend to see things in the reverse, they need to construct their reality in ways that conform with their preformed understanding rather than adjust their understanding to conform to realtiy.
Click to expand...

I am quite certain that I have been following along for at least as long as you have.

This is what courts of law do better than the political arena (for the most part). Science argued on the political playing field cannot be hard science. Money looms...control and power hang in the balance.
Are you not aware of the pending suits which await adjudication?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:



Patience is quite virtuous.
Are you familiar with the term; The last laugh?
IPCC report due Monday.
Court cases pending...
Smugness can be painful!
Click to expand...
"-Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
-There is a clear human influence on the climate
-It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

Everyones already laughing at you
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"-Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
-There is a clear human influence on the climate
-It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

Everyones already laughing at you
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha hardee har har.
Yes indeed you must be correct...Wiki is a great scientific citation.
The last laugh will be the most telling. The fullness of time will reveal your righteous misguided faith.
Sit tight. Smoke dope. Heavily.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
Ha ha ha hardee har har.
Yes indeed you must be correct...Wiki is a great scientific citation.
The last laugh will be the most telling. The fullness of time will reveal your righteous misguided faith.
Sit tight. Smoke dope. Heavily.
Click to expand...
Where did you read the 5th report is coming out Monday?

What makes you think the 5th report will say anything different than the 4th report, especially after reading the overwhelming conclusions they've already released (that I just posted) confirming ACC?
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
I reiterate; PATIENCE.
It will be fun to chat next week.
You are a fairly good sport, and nowhere near as caustic and bitter and seething with bile as Buck.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
I reiterate; PATIENCE.
It will be fun to chat next week.
You are a fairly good sport, and nowhere near as caustic and bitter and seething with bile as Buck.
Click to expand...
It's all in good fun. If I actually got pissed off about any of this I probably wouldn't do it
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
I am quite certain that I have been following along for at least as long as you have.

This is what courts of law do better than the political arena (for the most part). Science argued on the political playing field cannot be hard science. Money looms...control and power hang in the balance.
Are you not aware of the pending suits which await adjudication?
Click to expand...
You didn't really read what I wrote, and it seems that some of my other posts got... lost.

You are correct, science argued on a political playing field "cannot be hard science". Which is exactly why political front groups and "think tanks" have moved what was hard science into the public, lay, and political area. This is straight out of the tobacco playbook Wavels. Provide NO research of your own, attempt to cast doubt on the science not among other scientists but in the public.

I am amazed that you are incapable of seeing this, especially if you have been following along for years.

What is in that play book? First, get a group of organizations that have something to lose if the truth is revealed (tobacco causes cancer)
Then, hire PR firms that will create front groups that look to the world like disinterested third parties.
Create pseudo scientific organizations and "policy think tanks" that can disseminate misinformation.
Convince, or pay opinion publishers to place half truths in the media
Reduce the learned understandings of experts to the level of "opinion" so that any lay pundent is now on the same level as the professionals in the eyes of the public.

Have all those parties attack individual components of the scientific findings.

You see any of that? you are talking about the Heartland institute here Wavels.


[h=3]Exxon funding[/h]According to spokesman Jim Lakely, Heartland received $736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.[SUP][45][/SUP]
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists some of these transactions.[SUP][46][/SUP] (As mentioned above, Heartland insists that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[SUP][47][/SUP]
Exxon contributions include:

  • $30,000 in 1998;
  • $115,000 in 2000;
  • $90,000 in 2001;
  • $15,000 in 2002;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
  • $119,000 in 2005; and
  • $115,000 in 2006.
[h=3]Secrecy on funding sources[/h]While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[SUP][48][/SUP]It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."[SUP][47][/SUP]

Now, if you have indeed been watching the global warming situation, then you know all about the initial front group, the GCC or the Global Climate Coalition. They not only used the tobacco playbook but they enlisted many of the writers of that book. All this, front group after front group, think tank after think tank, planted article after article, ringers on lists of "experts". A profound lack of original research on the part of the deniers and now attempting to bring the debate into the legal arena and you still

still, believe that this is some legitimate battle for truth?

Why? why would governments and scientists all over the globe opt to perpetrate this monumental myth? When others ask this sort of question they get the typical response of "greed". Scientists want the grant money, or "control", governments want a way to control us as individuals. Yet these arguments never bear up under any sort of inspection at all.

So please, explain your reasoning.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
I am quite certain that I have been following along for at least as long as you have.

This is what courts of law do better than the political arena (for the most part). Science argued on the political playing field cannot be hard science. Money looms...control and power hang in the balance.
Are you not aware of the pending suits which await adjudication?
Click to expand...
You didn't really read what I wrote, and it seems that some of my other posts got... lost.

You are correct, science argued on a political playing field "cannot be hard science". Which is exactly why political front groups and "think tanks" have moved what was hard science into the public, lay, and political area. This is straight out of the tobacco playbook Wavels. Provide NO research of your own, attempt to cast doubt on the science not among other scientists but in the public.

I am amazed that you are incapable of seeing this, especially if you have been following along for years.

What is in that play book? First, get a group of organizations that have something to lose if the truth is revealed (tobacco causes cancer)
Then, hire PR firms that will create front groups that look to the world like disinterested third parties.
Create pseudo scientific organizations and "policy think tanks" that can disseminate misinformation.
Convince, or pay opinion publishers to place half truths in the media
Reduce the learned understandings of experts to the level of "opinion" so that any lay pundent is now on the same level as the professionals in the eyes of the public.

Have all those parties attack individual components of the scientific findings.

You see any of that? you are talking about the Heartland institute here Wavels.


[h=3]Exxon funding[/h]According to spokesman Jim Lakely, Heartland received $736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.[SUP][45][/SUP]
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists some of these transactions.[SUP][46][/SUP] (As mentioned above, Heartland insists that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[SUP][47][/SUP]
Exxon contributions include:

  • $30,000 in 1998;
  • $115,000 in 2000;
  • $90,000 in 2001;
  • $15,000 in 2002;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
  • $119,000 in 2005; and
  • $115,000 in 2006.
[h=3]Secrecy on funding sources[/h]While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[SUP][48][/SUP]It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."[SUP][47][/SUP]

Now, if you have indeed been watching the global warming situation, then you know all about the initial front group, the GCC or the Global Climate Coalition. They not only used the tobacco playbook but they enlisted many of the writers of that book. All this, front group after front group, think tank after think tank, planted article after article, ringers on lists of "experts". A profound lack of original research on the part of the deniers and now attempting to bring the debate into the legal arena and you still

still, believe that this is some legitimate battle for truth?

Why? why would governments and scientists all over the globe opt to perpetrate this monumental myth? When others ask this sort of question they get the typical response of "greed". Scientists want the grant money, or "control", governments want a way to control us as individuals. Yet these arguments never bear up under any sort of inspection at all.

So please, explain your reasoning.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Canndo you have it and you missed it all at the same time.

Money. It isn't a giant conspiracy. It is a self fulling money tree, I call Saganism. There is no evidence on way or another.

If there was, we would not be having the Planetary Climate Money war, would we?
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You didn't really read what I wrote, and it seems that some of my other posts got... lost.

You are correct, science argued on a political playing field "cannot be hard science". Which is exactly why political front groups and "think tanks" have moved what was hard science into the public, lay, and political area. This is straight out of the tobacco playbook Wavels. Provide NO research of your own, attempt to cast doubt on the science not among other scientists but in the public.

I am amazed that you are incapable of seeing this, especially if you have been following along for years.

What is in that play book? First, get a group of organizations that have something to lose if the truth is revealed (tobacco causes cancer)
Then, hire PR firms that will create front groups that look to the world like disinterested third parties.
Create pseudo scientific organizations and "policy think tanks" that can disseminate misinformation.
Convince, or pay opinion publishers to place half truths in the media
Reduce the learned understandings of experts to the level of "opinion" so that any lay pundent is now on the same level as the professionals in the eyes of the public.

Have all those parties attack individual components of the scientific findings.

You see any of that? you are talking about the Heartland institute here Wavels.


Exxon funding

According to spokesman Jim Lakely, Heartland received $736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.[SUP][45][/SUP]
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists some of these transactions.[SUP][46][/SUP] (As mentioned above, Heartland insists that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[SUP][47][/SUP]
Exxon contributions include:

  • $30,000 in 1998;
  • $115,000 in 2000;
  • $90,000 in 2001;
  • $15,000 in 2002;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
  • $119,000 in 2005; and
  • $115,000 in 2006.
Secrecy on funding sources

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[SUP][48][/SUP]It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."[SUP][47][/SUP]

Now, if you have indeed been watching the global warming situation, then you know all about the initial front group, the GCC or the Global Climate Coalition. They not only used the tobacco playbook but they enlisted many of the writers of that book. All this, front group after front group, think tank after think tank, planted article after article, ringers on lists of "experts". A profound lack of original research on the part of the deniers and now attempting to bring the debate into the legal arena and you still

still, believe that this is some legitimate battle for truth?

Why? why would governments and scientists all over the globe opt to perpetrate this monumental myth? When others ask this sort of question they get the typical response of "greed". Scientists want the grant money, or "control", governments want a way to control us as individuals. Yet these arguments never bear up under any sort of inspection at all.

So please, explain your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Well, I did read your post in its entirety twice...your basic assertion is that the Government is an objective disinterested third part...a referee of sorts.
I disagree and would counter that Governments across the globe have the most to gain in perpetuating the alleged veracity of ACC.
Money, power and additional control of their respective populaces is, IMO what this is truly about.

Tobacco and the tort lawyers battle is a bogus analogy...governments did not stand to be remunerated in any way approximating the alarmist cries of "We must save the planet at all costs"

The pure science and its mission of uncovering the objective nature of reality as best it can should be unimpeded by Politics.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You didn't really read what I wrote, and it seems that some of my other posts got... lost.

You are correct, science argued on a political playing field "cannot be hard science". Which is exactly why political front groups and "think tanks" have moved what was hard science into the public, lay, and political area. This is straight out of the tobacco playbook Wavels. Provide NO research of your own, attempt to cast doubt on the science not among other scientists but in the public.

I am amazed that you are incapable of seeing this, especially if you have been following along for years.

What is in that play book? First, get a group of organizations that have something to lose if the truth is revealed (tobacco causes cancer)
Then, hire PR firms that will create front groups that look to the world like disinterested third parties.
Create pseudo scientific organizations and "policy think tanks" that can disseminate misinformation.
Convince, or pay opinion publishers to place half truths in the media
Reduce the learned understandings of experts to the level of "opinion" so that any lay pundent is now on the same level as the professionals in the eyes of the public.

Have all those parties attack individual components of the scientific findings.

You see any of that? you are talking about the Heartland institute here Wavels.


Exxon funding

According to spokesman Jim Lakely, Heartland received $736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.[SUP][45][/SUP]
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists some of these transactions.[SUP][46][/SUP] (As mentioned above, Heartland insists that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[SUP][47][/SUP]
Exxon contributions include:

  • $30,000 in 1998;
  • $115,000 in 2000;
  • $90,000 in 2001;
  • $15,000 in 2002;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
  • $85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
  • $119,000 in 2005; and
  • $115,000 in 2006.
Secrecy on funding sources

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[SUP][48][/SUP]It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."[SUP][47][/SUP]

Now, if you have indeed been watching the global warming situation, then you know all about the initial front group, the GCC or the Global Climate Coalition. They not only used the tobacco playbook but they enlisted many of the writers of that book. All this, front group after front group, think tank after think tank, planted article after article, ringers on lists of "experts". A profound lack of original research on the part of the deniers and now attempting to bring the debate into the legal arena and you still

still, believe that this is some legitimate battle for truth?

Why? why would governments and scientists all over the globe opt to perpetrate this monumental myth? When others ask this sort of question they get the typical response of "greed". Scientists want the grant money, or "control", governments want a way to control us as individuals. Yet these arguments never bear up under any sort of inspection at all.

So please, explain your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Well, I did read your post in its entirety twice...your basic assertion is that the Government is an objective disinterested third part...a referee of sorts.
I disagree and would counter that Governments across the globe have the most to gain in perpetuating the alleged veracity of ACC.
Money, power and additional control of their respective populaces is, IMO what this is truly about.

Tobacco and the tort lawyers battle is a bogus analogy...governments did not stand to be remunerated in any way approximating the alarmist cries of "We must save the planet at all costs"

The pure science and its mission of uncovering the objective nature of reality as best it can should be unimpeded by Politics.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Well, I did read your post in its entirety twice...your basic assertion is that the Government is an objective disinterested third part...a referee of sorts.
I disagree and would counter that Governments across the globe have the most to gain in perpetuating the alleged veracity of ACC.
Money, power and additional control of their respective populaces is, IMO what this is truly about.

Tobacco and the tort lawyers battle is a bogus analogy...governments did not stand to be remunerated in any way approximating the alarmist cries of "We must save the planet at all costs"

The pure science and its mission of uncovering the objective nature of reality as best it can should be unimpeded by Politics.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Canndo you have it and you missed it all at the same time.

Money. It isn't a giant conspiracy. It is a self fulling money tree, I call Saganism. There is no evidence on way or another.

If there was, we would not be having the Planetary Climate Money war, would we?
Click to expand...
Ok, a planetary war over the truth of global warming.

The scientists win - what have we got? nothing, becausse should they finally have convinced every man woman and child on earth that their tiny carbon foot prints are killing their children, we still have to come up with a policy. Is anyone paranoid enough to figure that the moment we actually pass things over to the policy makers that we will be instantly shorn of our rights? If so, then that same PR that has been perpetrated upon us has again triumphed.

The scientists lose - Oh well, they were wrong, we can continue along the same path, all warming, if there is any, is just the way things are on earth. Beyond that, why bother with any pollution at all? Does Government lose it's control over citizens? Not likely.

If there is a war, then it is the status quo against a possible horrible future. Who stands to get the most out of change? and who stands to get the most out of the status quo and which is worth more?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Ok, a planetary war over the truth of global warming.

The scientists win - what have we got? nothing, becausse should they finally have convinced every man woman and child on earth that their tiny carbon foot prints are killing their children, we still have to come up with a policy. Is anyone paranoid enough to figure that the moment we actually pass things over to the policy makers that we will be instantly shorn of our rights? If so, then that same PR that has been perpetrated upon us has again triumphed.

The scientists lose - Oh well, they were wrong, we can continue along the same path, all warming, if there is any, is just the way things are on earth. Beyond that, why bother with any pollution at all? Does Government lose it's control over citizens? Not likely.

If there is a war, then it is the status quo against a possible horrible future. Who stands to get the most out of change? and who stands to get the most out of the status quo and which is worth more?
Click to expand...
You really are almost all the way there. You can characterize it what ever way you want from here. I totally get it.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
Well, I did read your post in its entirety twice...your basic assertion is that the Government is an objective disinterested third part...a referee of sorts.
I disagree and would counter that Governments across the globe have the most to gain in perpetuating the alleged veracity of ACC.
Money, power and additional control of their respective populaces is, IMO what this is truly about.

Tobacco and the tort lawyers battle is a bogus analogy...governments did not stand to be remunerated in any way approximating the alarmist cries of "We must save the planet at all costs"

The pure science and its mission of uncovering the objective nature of reality as best it can should be unimpeded by Politics.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be addressing the rise of private institutions assembled expressly to sow misinformation. Now, it is possible that the government itself has some interest in disinformation, but you don't much explain what this interest is. These studies have been going on across multiple administrations. Why would the government want us to believe this monumental hoax, perpetrated over 30 years, joined in by numberous countries and thousands of scientists in hundreds of different fields. Why would all governments wish to lie for such a long time to so many people in so many countries? Do you really believe that it is their collective wish to subjugate their respective citizens? and if you do, then why bother with something so complex? Governments have much easier, less expensive, quicker and more efficient means at their disposals to manipulate their people.

This is never explained, only that governments, being bad, must be lying to us. Is there some anual meeting I don't know about where all the heads of state, and all of the principals of major research arms in various schools of science all get together and plot?

Now I never said that government was disinterested, I suspect they are very interested as, for example, the pentagon has been projecting what might happen if global warming precipitates any number of disasters and actions by other governments, and actually planning for those sorts of events.

What, exactly does the government have to gain and how does that compare with what the largest businesses on earth have to lose, should they be forced to change their methods of operation?

Money and power? Show me comparable front groups, think tanks PR campaigns and the like that are funded by the government at even close to the rate big business is doing so. Please, show me the mechanisms and the evidence that government not only has something to gain but is activly campainging in that regard.

The tobacco example is actually a perfect one, not because of the battle between government and business but the battle for men's minds and opinions.

Again, if you have been watching, please explain what those PR firms, front groups and think tanks are doing?

Why are the deniers not funding their own independent research rather than simply spending all their time trying to poke holes in the most trivial aspects of the problem?

No Wavels, any examination of the real, national and global dynamics of this now political argument demonstrates that the right's explainations of WHY fall very very flat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top